Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

First the Speaker, now the Chief Constable…….

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by AnnaRaccoon on May 19, 2009

It is said of the Law that it is the glue which holds the fabric of society together – if that is so, we are in danger of unravelling fast.

The High Court appears to be losing – or rather ‘relinquishing’ – its authority. If the High Court doesn’t stamp its foot and cry ‘contempt of court’ when its authority is challenged by iconic figures in society, we cannot be surprised that lesser mortals have no respect for the law.

One of the most serious charges laid at the door of the Speaker of our House of Commons is that he ignored the order from the High Court to publish MPs expenses.

Today we hear of a Chief Constable, no less, who is also ignoring the writ of the High Court.

The casual reader must surely gain the impression that somewhere we have a man who falsely claimed to be an expert in child porn but in fact was revealed to be a common or garden (and thus despicable) viewer of child porn who was trying to reclaim his property consisting of sickening images.

Terence Bates, the ‘expert’ in question, is acknowledged on the BBC site as being an ‘electronics expert’, however he did lie about having a degree on his CV. Lying about a degree didn’t result in Derek Draper being described as a ‘fake web master’, nor was Jeffrey Archer ever described as being a ‘fake MP’. Mr Bates – who must surely have celebrated the day he stopped being Master Bates – has spent many years delving into the murky depths of on-line pornography including that involving children. He was called as an expert witness in the case of Brian Stevens, the Soham murders detective cleared of child pornography offences, it was not suggested that Bates’ evidence had adversely affected the outcome of any trial. An alert Prosecution lawyer had merely managed to discredit him regarding his degree status.

Fast forward a year, and Somerset and Avon police seize 87 hard drives – including one belonging to Mr Bates – whilst investigating a suspected paedophile conspiracy. Before they had time to examine those hard drives and discover whether or not they did contain child pornography, or indeed anything more reprehensible than a grocery shopping list, the High Court ruled that the Police had exceeded their authority and that those hard drives should be returned, unexamined.

Thus we arrive at the position today whereby Colin Port, the Chief Constable, has decided that they probably ‘do’ contain child pornography, and he is ‘probably’, socially and morally, right to retain them and defy the High Court – and the BBC have seen fit to ensure that Mr Bates is seen as ‘probably’ part of a paedophile conspiracy.

Trial by Internet is becoming increasingly fashionable. We have a situation in Portugal where a Policeman – Gonçalo Amaral – investigating a crime, is described as ‘defaming the reputation’ of witnesses who declined to answer his questions or return to his jurisdiction and risk arrest, and the BBC happily and almost gleefully, report that the McCann’s – two individuals who bizarrely appear happier to imagine that their daughter is alive and in the hands of a paedophile gang rather than mercifully dead – are suing him for suggesting that they may have been complicit in her disappearance; conversely, the BBC is happily reporting, almost gleefully, that a Chief Constable in the UK who had the chance to investigate a crime, no absconding witnesses, no political interference, considers that paedophilia is such a heinous act that due process can be dispensed with and he can take punitive action against individuals that he only ‘suspects’ may have been complicit in a crime.

When we have a Speaker of the House of Commons who is prepared to defy the law, it ill behoves us to seek to impose our brand of democracy on other countries.

When we have a Chief Constable who is prepared to defy the law, it ill behoves us to speak ill of the judiciary in other countries.

Terence Bates may well be a master pornographer – if he is, it is for the Judiciary to decide, on the evidence.

this is war – the biggest liability to the security of this nation is the present government and parliamentary system – they have succeeded in destroying this country in ways terrorists can only imagine.

Blink, I was watching a news journal programme on Eurovision yesterday, MEPs from Italy, Greece, and Latvia, falling about laughing at the state of the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ – it was awful to watch, I was mortified.

Mr Bate’s case is even more complex. I remember somewwhere on the internet his full description of the circumstances. Basically he was involved as the defence expert witness for a number of cases. The drives seized were (at least in one case I remember) forensically copied by Mr Bates from a PC held as evidence in a Police Station. So he was allowed access to a Police station by the Police to copy a drive in Police Custody. Later on, the Police arrest and charge him based on the supposed evidence held on those same drives. Basically arresting him for possessing evidence he was working on for the defence.

If the Police obtained the evidence in his case unlawfully as determined by the Judicial Revue, then they should return it. Its not for the Police to say whether they will or won’t follow the directions of the courts. I hope the Chief Constable is held in contempt and prosecuted for his actions.

But it seems the Police generally think they are above the law. Assaulting people in demonstrations, arresting a Westminster MP and a Jersey Senator without warrants, it has to stop and the Police need to be forced to abide by the law.

Yet again we see the police making it up as they see fit. When will they remember that their role is to see that laws (made by others & not them) are upheld. Perhaps one mans stupid crusade or perhaps there is another reason why he will not obey the law and return the property as demanded! For the ordinary common man if he did not obey such an order you can take it as read that by the end of this week that man would be behin bars. Issues such as this demonstrates just why there is no public support or trust for the police and it’s about time situations such as this are stopped. Give him 48 hours and if he does not comply with the court order then send him down.

It does appear that Mr Port has quite a lot to hide and is spending considerable amounts of public money in doing so.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anna

Your link was broken Sean so I have removed it.

I neither defend nor condemn Mr Port – it is not whether he is guilty of anything or even something, it is whether the Chief Constable is obliged to follow due process – we don’t have vigilante law in this country yet, regardless of how strong feelings may be on certain subjects.

Point taken. So Mr Port has been given an order by an authority higher than himself to return the property illegally taken by his officers, which of course is tantamount to theft and he is refusing to obey this order. Mr Port arouses suspicion on the grounds why he is not prepared to return the property, even though he has made certain comments regarding his decision they seem a little strange. The plain and simple answer Anna is that Mr Port must follow due process as demanded by the High Court and if he still refuses to comply then he is in contempt and if it were anyone else we would alreaday be in a cell by now.

Delphius1 said on May 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm: But it seems the Police generally think they are above the law. Assaulting people in demonstrations, arresting a Westminster MP and a Jersey Senator without warrants, it has to stop and the Police need to be forced to abide by the law.

We are a bit late on that approach. The police know that they are above the law. See the home page of ACPO Ltd, the Home Office’s sub contractor for the management of the UK police, where it says that they are in equal and active partnership with Government.

In the worst of all possible worlds that the media hysteria is creating for us at the moment, I would not be surprised to see our next government being formed by (or subservient to) ACPO Ltd.